United States: Supreme Court Of N.J. Issues Two Significant Search And Seizure Opinions

New Jersey's courts have seen an uptick in Fourth Amendment search and seizure and ancillary privacy litigation over the last few years. In April and May of 2015 alone, the state Supreme Court issued two significant opinions that implicate both the Fourth Amendment and the proper admission into evidence of monitored telephone calls: State of New Jersey v. Ricky Wright and State of New Jersey v. Kingkamau Nantambu. A quick look at the court's docket for next term shows that more decisions are coming.

The Private Search Doctrine

The "private search doctrine" occupies a semi-obscure corner of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. At its base, the doctrine addresses instances in which a private actor (i.e., not a law enforcement officer) conducts a "search" and discovers some species of contraband or proof of illegal conduct. That person must then proceed to notify law enforcement personnel or present them with the item in question. Law enforcement must then proceed to duplicate the private search without first obtaining a judicial warrant.

Does this happen every day? Probably not. Yet, it happens enough to be the subject of a May decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey—State of New Jersey v. Ricky Wright—which recounts a diverse line of state and federal authority on this very issue.

Although somewhat counterintuitive, the logic of the doctrine is as follows: Since a private person conducts the original search, it is deemed to not implicate the Fourth Amendment. So, if the follow-up police search does not exceed the scope of the private search, the government is held not to have invaded a protected privacy interest and an otherwise proscribed warrantless search can be valid.

Should this doctrine apply to the most sacred of all Fourth Amendment locations—a private home? As always, this is the beating heart of the privacy-based analysis. For as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has observed, "[W]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals 'and stands' at the Amendment's very core." Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013). These protections exist with equal vigor in the New Jersey State Constitution, in Article I, Paragraph 7. This eternal clash between privacy and law enforcement prerogatives brings us to the case of Ricky Wright.

Wright had a girlfriend, a woman named Evangeline James. She lived with her children in an apartment in Asbury Park, New Jersey, where Wright stayed over three-to-four nights a week.

One Sunday evening in March 2009, James called her landlord to report a major water leak in her ceiling. The landlord instructed James to turn off the water main valve and assured her that both he and a plumber would be at the apartment in the morning.

The landlord was true to his word and arrived in the company of a plumber on Monday morning. James, however, was not home and did not answer her telephone. After waiting about 30 minutes, the landlord let himself in—something he had done before, presumably as required for routine maintenance.

The landlord and the plumber observed water and raw sewage leaking from the kitchen ceiling. As they moved through the apartment looking for other leaks, they noticed marijuana on a night stand. In an open drawer inside the night stand, they also found what they believed to be cocaine. They called the police.

Police Officer Christie soon arrived at the scene. Officer Christie walked through the apartment and noticed the drugs. He also found a scale, which neither the landlord nor the plumber had mentioned. He then called for back-up, and a full search (on consent) was carried out. This search yielded other drug contraband, as well as a handgun loaded with illegal hollow-point bullets. James and Wright were arrested.

Both were then indicted for several drug and weapons offenses. At trial, Wright moved to suppress all the evidence seized. Despite a police admission that the need to search was not exigent and that there had been ample time to obtain a warrant, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the search of the apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment or state constitutional protections. The trial court relied primarily on the private search doctrine and found that the police search did not exceed in scope that which was done by the plumber and the landlord. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted a petition for certification to consider one issue: whether the private search doctrine (also sometimes referred to as the third-party intervention doctrine) can be used to search a residence without a warrant. On May 19, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Rabner, this question was resoundingly answered in the negative, as the state Supreme Court reversed the findings of the trial court and the Appellate Division and found the search of James' apartment to be unconstitutional.

The court acknowledged the existence of the private search doctrine as rooted in earlier United States Supreme Court authority and confirmed the general precept that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies only to searches carried out by government agents, not by private individuals. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921); Walter v. United States, 477 U.S. 649 (1980).

While the doctrine has an almost 100-year-long pedigree, the United States Supreme Court has never extended its reach to the search of a private home. This apparently troubled the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which found such a proposed usage to be a "significant expansion" of the doctrine and something about which it had "serious reservations."

Of interest to New Jersey practitioners is that the opinion was premised on both state and federal law. The absence of a United States Supreme Court opinion on the point weighed heavily here, but the state Supreme Court maintained that its holding rested on the New Jersey State Constitution and New Jersey precedent, as well.

At the end of the day, it seems the fact that the premises searched was a private home was what swung the day in Wright's favor. The court cited federal and state case law, all confirming the special intimate and personal nature of a private residence and the careful scrutiny that must accompany any state intrusion into that space. "The unique status of the home has been recognized for centuries." See the opinion citing Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307 (1958).

A warrantless search of a home is "presumptively invalid," wrote Chief Justice Rabner, citing State of New Jersey v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300 (2014); and Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014). Only a recognized exception to the warrant requirement can justify such an intrusion. The search of the apartment in the Wright case did not meet this high standard.

Though his opinion was emphatic, Chief Justice Rabner reviewed the various findings on this issue reached by other states and federal circuit and district courts. New Jersey's view can be argued to be the majority view, but it is not a unanimous view. While the application of the private search doctrine to private residences may be resolved in New Jersey, it is foreseeable that rulings from other courts in other jurisdictions are likely to continue.

An Audio Tape with Gaps in It

Audio tapes and video tapes are a frequent coin of the realm in both federal and state criminal practice. It is increasingly rare to find a major prosecution in which the government's discovery does not now include some form of recording. There are multiple paths of varying effectiveness through which intrepid defense counsel can seek to exclude this evidence. One of the more straightforward ways is if the recording in question can be argued to have been incomplete in some way.

One might assume that a partial recording, even if relevant, would be so inherently suspect as to preclude admission under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence or one of its state law counterparts. This would be a perilous assumption. Incomplete or partial tape recordings can be admitted, once authenticated and found to be trustworthy, although litigating for admission can require a challenging and convoluted analysis. One such scenario was addressed in April by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State of New Jersey v. Kingkamau Nantambu.

Nantambu was involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend, Crystal Aikens. The police were summoned, and Aikens then alleged that Nantambu had threatened her with an illegally possessed firearm. Such a weapon was, in fact, found on the premises. This resulted in Nantambu's being charged with two gun offenses.

Shortly after his arrest, Aikens also reported to the police that Nantambu had contacted her and had engaged in "witness tampering," attempting to influence her future testimony in exchange for money. Aikens agreed to let two detectives from the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office place recording equipment on her cellular telephone and listen in while she talked to Nantambu. Two ear pieces were then attached to the telephone and to a digital audio recorder in order to capture the conversation while the detectives stood by.

For a time, all went quite well (from the prosecution's point of view, at least). Aikens reached Nantambu, who soon promised her money in an attempt to script what she would say going forward. He also admitted that he had, in fact, possessed a gun.

Then, things took a turn. According to the detectives, during the call, Aikens shifted her position and moved the cellphone. This, in turn, caused the recording device to fall and the wires to disconnect. By the time the recorder was retrieved and checked and the wires reattached, two minutes had elapsed and the conversation was effectively over. The resulting recording thus had a significant gap.

Nonetheless, the state added bribery and witness tampering charges to Nantambu's already-existing weapons issues. At trial, the state attempted to offer the partial recording as substantive evidence on both sets of charges. This proffer was bolstered by testimony from the detectives to the effect that they had heard portions of the unrecorded slice of the conversation and that nothing material had transpired in the missing part.

The defense objected, citing to State of New Jersey v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 (1962), contending that the gap in the tape made it inadmissible. The trial court agreed, finding that, although the gap was not caused by any intentional conduct by the police, the very existence of a gap precluded the tape's admission. The court was also discomfited that the gap was situated immediately after one particularly damaging statement by Nantambu.

On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, crediting the testimony by the detectives that nothing material was said in the two-minute gap. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification.

Under Driver and New Jersey law, partial tape recordings can come into evidence. But the trial court must first utilize Driver's five-part analysis applicable to all recordings proffered by the state: (i) that the device used could and did, in fact, record; (ii) that its operation was competent; (iii) that the recording is authentic; (iv) that no changes, additions or deletions were made; (v) and that any confessions on the tape were elicited voluntarily.

In the circumstances of a partial recording, it is thus really the fourth Driver element that comes to the forefront, as trial court must determine whether admission of a partial tape unduly prejudices the interests of the defendant and what the remedy should be.

Here, the state Supreme Court found that gaps in a tape do not automatically require the exclusion of the entire recording. Instead, the court instructed that an evidentiary hearing must be held on the trial court level in order to determine whether the missing portion renders the entire recording inherently unreliable. The court also left open the possibility that strategic redactions of portions of a tape made unreliable by missing material is an option that may be considered at trial.

Thus, in evaluating a partial recording, the trial court would need to determine two things: first, whether an omission or gap in the tape is unduly prejudicial; and second, if prejudice is found, whether the prejudice renders all or only some of the tape untrustworthy. The trial court should then suppress only the portion deemed untrustworthy.

Since this analysis was not done, the judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for additional consideration.

What Next Year May Hold

The Wright and Nantambu cases are meant to be illustrative only—they do not comprise all of the Fourth Amendment or privacy opinions in the past year—and represent two unique and especially interesting decisions. A look at the state Supreme Court's pending docket for the next term shows that more decisions are coming. Here are some examples.

  • State of New Jersey v. Gary Lunsford, A-61-14. Should cellular telephone billing records be secured by a grand jury subpoena or a search warrant?
  • State of New Jersey v. Antoine Watts, A-21-14. Possible suppression of certain drug evidence not found in an initial search of a premises pursuant to warrant, but found while defendant was being transferred to another location.
  • State of New Jersey v. Demetrius Cope, A-13-14. Was a protective sweep of a suspect's apartment justified?
  • State of New Jersey v. William L. Witt, A-9-14. Should the automobile exception of the warrant requirement apply in this case?

In sum, next year promises to be an active one for the New Jersey Supreme Court.

This article originally appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal.

Eric R. Breslin is a partner in the Newark office of Duane Morris. He concentrates his practice in the areas of complex commercial litigation and white-collar criminal litigation.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Emails

From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.